The challenge is, how would you attach a label to the thing that needs to be named when there is nothing physical to attach to? Possibly you could attach the label to the noConn component, but this would be a bit of a special case. What about the situation where you have two series connected resistors which have overlapping pins - how would you name the net then? You can't attach a label to an instance, because it wouldn't know which pin you wanted it to belong to.

To some extent, there have to be some semantics associated with how the physical drawing is converted into logical connectivity, and so some rules/limitations apply.

So if you can think of a good/usable way of naming the net, I can propose it - I just can't think of a way it would be done...

You can do that, but it will get lost as soon as you do a "check" on the schematic again, so it's probably of limited value. That said, we have had some thoughts on having the connectivity being more persistent (only an idea, so I don't want to give details here).

However, as soon as you do a "check", it will get reset. This is because the physical interconnect drives the connectivity, not the other way around - and any net not set by the schematic checker will get recreated. This is to help ensure that inconsistencies don't appear when connectivity is changed in the schematic - you could have ended up with two things which are still connected to the same net despite there being no physical connection any more (because the wire was deleted), and it would have to somehow know the intent of the user.

Of course, it's conceivable that we could have it that the connectivity in the database is more persistent, but right now it doesn't work that way.